We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

Post by xbar » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 2:07 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #60

deet wrote: post #10

Imagine if you couldn't buy a lathe unless it refused to make a baseball bat (which could be used for hitting people). Or if you couldn't buy scissors (because they could cut brake lines). Or if you couldn't buy a car (because it could be used to run someone over). And if all of those checked with the government before functioning. It's almost like maybe instead you should just ban the undesirable end action, enforce…

We used to ban the undesirable action! Then DEFCAD got that ban overturned, convincing the federal government that they have a First Amendment right to publish 3D-printable firearm plans. So now our choices are to allow widespread 3D printed firearms (which I and many others won't accept) or restrict the means by which they can be made. I genuinely do wish the DEFCAD folks had made different choices that would not ha…

Post by culi » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 2:11 AM UTC

jatora wrote: post #30

asveikau wrote: post #26

California voters, write to your state senator. I'm in San Francisco, and I wrote to Scott Wiener, who recently voted to pass this out of committee. Before that when it was still in the assembly, I wrote to Matt Haney, which didn't do much good because he voted for it both in committee and for passage. But, I feel like bay area legislators need to know many of their constituents know this bill is misguided and are pa…

[flagged]

Post by culi » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 2:14 AM UTC

jatora wrote: post #40

asveikau wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My letter opened with the fact that I generally favor reasonable gun laws, then elaborated how this is not that. It's possible that nobody reads it and captures the nuance, but I did spend time to consider the framing. Nobody who actually reads it will think I am an extremist or that I haven't carefully considered the topic.

99% chance your letter ends up in the shredder without being read

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 2:22 AM UTC

xbar wrote: post #71

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to ban the undesirable action! Then DEFCAD got that ban overturned, convincing the federal government that they have a First Amendment right to publish 3D-printable firearm plans. So now our choices are to allow widespread 3D printed firearms (which I and many others won't accept) or restrict the means by which they can be made. I genuinely do wish the DEFCAD folks had made different choices that would not ha…

Do you think DEFCAD will get this overturned, too?

Post by simoncion » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 2:27 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #60

deet wrote: post #10

Imagine if you couldn't buy a lathe unless it refused to make a baseball bat (which could be used for hitting people). Or if you couldn't buy scissors (because they could cut brake lines). Or if you couldn't buy a car (because it could be used to run someone over). And if all of those checked with the government before functioning. It's almost like maybe instead you should just ban the undesirable end action, enforce…

We used to ban the undesirable action! Then DEFCAD got that ban overturned, convincing the federal government that they have a First Amendment right to publish 3D-printable firearm plans. So now our choices are to allow widespread 3D printed firearms (which I and many others won't accept) or restrict the means by which they can be made. I genuinely do wish the DEFCAD folks had made different choices that would not ha…